Vadim Plessky [mailto:lucy-ples@mtu-net.ru] asked:
>On Monday 22 October 2001 15:59, Chris Wilson wrote:
>| Note that my actual statement was that if a single company ever
>| implemented _ALL_ of CSS2, so that I couldn't find any bugs or
missing
>| parts, I would buy that company a beer. No one, to my knowledge,
>
>Chris, can you clarify please: one beer to company, or one beer to
every
>developer?
I believe the phrase you're looking for is "intentionally vague". :^)
>Is your offer valid for CSS3 as well?
If you manage to prove me wrong for CSS2, then I expect I would be
significantly chastened and not stupid enough to make the same mistake
twice. Note this offer wasn't made in the context of an enticement - it
was a statement that I thought CSS2 was sufficiently large, complex and
wide-ranging that no single company would ever find it worthwhile to
implement everything in it with sufficient detail so I couldn't find
missing bits or bugs. Good on you if you can, though.
>...on another hand, this looks like too much internal / low-level font
info.
>Current Fonts module became, in terms of complexity, close to TrueType
>specification, and I am afraid that final WG recommendation can be (in
terms
>of complexity/overhead) close to OpenType.
>I doubt such complexity is really necessary. It would be nice to hear
your
>opinion, though.
Heh. Exactly my point - to implement the WebFonts section of CSS2 so
that I can't find anything missing or buggy is going to be very very
difficult.
>| made it yet, though Angus Davis brazenly claimed success for
Netscape a
>| couple of years ago.
>
>Hmmm. May I ask you who is Angus Davis?
He was a Netscape marketing guy at the time, and member of the CSS and
HTML Working Groups.
-Chris